On Jul 21, 2008, at 12:43, Tom Lane wrote:
> From a maintenance point of view there seems little need
> for either project to get integrated: they don't appear to have much
> of any code that is tightly tied to backend innards.
Well, citext against CVS HEAD is quite different from the other
version I maintain for 8.3. The latter copies the str_toloer() code
out of formatting.c from CVS and adds a number of includes in order to
get things to work the same as against HEAD. I could probably work
around this, though, if there was a macro with the version number in it.
> Now, there is some value in submitting the code for review ---
> certainly
> citext is a whole lot better than it was a few weeks ago.
Absolutely. I really appreciate the feedback and comments I've
received. Thank you!
> I think it
> would be a good idea to be open to reviewing pgfoundry code with the
> same standards we'd use if we were going to integrate it. Perhaps
> commitfest is not the right venue for that, though, if only because
> of the possibility of confusion over what's supposed to happen.
>
> Comments?
I think that this is a very good idea. But you might have trouble
motivating people to review code that won't be in core unless it's
managed very diligently. An official extended library distribution, as
Josh suggests, would probably help with this, as it then becomes a
project alongside PostgreSQL that bundles a lot of great add-ons,
rather than just leaving all the add-ons to themselves on pgFoundry.
Best,
David